Copyright has a chilling effect on book sales...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You're the one appealing to natural law. Current copyright law doesn't require you to be a thief. No one is forcing you not to pay for public domain works.

Pay who?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's your set of values; not mine. I don't need detailed explanations, demonstrations, and justifications to explain a simple concept. If one creates something, it's theirs.

It appears that you simply can't back it up.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Pay who?

So, you will recieve stolen goods if it is just too much work to figure out who owns it? Mighty convenient. Is it really all that difficult to find the closest relative? Did you even make the attempt?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You don't need a unique work to create a different unique work, but consider that some works enter the cultural consciousness and transcend being merely a novel (or a movie). People have often taken old works and reworked them to create new works that draw at least some of their power from their relation to the initial work.

Then why should that principle only be available at some future point in time? If a work has that much value, shouldn't it go into public domain immediately?

Likewise, in the past, authors have often taken moderately successful works and then reworked them in new ways to create a superior story (William Shakespeare was a master of this).

Be that as it may, he lived under a different set of laws.

Ultimately, since copyright is totally a construct of government, I want to know what benefits result from extending copyright further?

Profit for the copyright holders. That's the whole point.

It should also be pointed out that after a generation or two, if copyright ends up being held by multiple parties, it might prevent any books from being republished since trying to get all rights holders to agree can become more trouble than the book is worth.

Then the book dies and life marches on.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It appears that you simply can't back it up.

I have no idea what you're looking for, but I don't have to prove something according to your rules. It's obvious we disagree and I really don't care.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

So, you will recieve stolen goods if it is just too much work to figure out who owns it? Mighty convenient. Is it really all that difficult to find the closest relative? Did you even make the attempt?

Why? I didn't create these laws, government did. So it's up to them to change it.

[QuantumIguana]

Then the book dies and life marches on.

Book burning without the smoke.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The benefit is lost with either no copyright or with eternal copyright. With no copyright, there is no incentive to create, so the work doesn't exist. With eternal copyright, the public cannot benefit from the work.

Who says the public needs to benefit?

It's not my rules. It is basic logic. You and Giggleton have a lot on common.

Why does "if someone creates something unique, it's theirs" need further explanation. It's a very simple concept.

The law doesn't matter, you are attempting to appeal to natural law, in essence, youre going "over the head" of the law. If the public domain is theft, then anyone who uses the public domain is a thief, regardless of what the law says.

I'm only advocating a change in current laws.

Book burning without the smoke.

If that's what you believe, go for it.

[HansTWN]

QuantumIguana, Tubemonkey's position is logical and simple. Someone created something, so they are free to do with it as they please. Society didn't create it and all the creator owes society is to pay his taxes on the income derived from his creation and respect other laws.

You may not agree with his position, you can argue that society may be worse off if Tubemonkey's idea of eternal copyright would be introduced, but it certainly is logical. Now just the fact that there are some loose ends as mentioned (what happens if you cannot locate the owner or his/her heirs) simply means that Tubemonkey has not considered every simple detail (yet).

[QuantumIguana]

Why does "if someone creates something unique, it's theirs" need further explanation. It's a very simple concept.

A simple concept should be easy to easy to support.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

A simple concept should be easy to easy to support.

OK, I support it.

[QuantumIguana]

I have to remember not to cast pearls before swine.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

It should also be pointed out that after a generation or two, if copyright ends up being held by multiple parties, it might prevent any books from being republished since trying to get all rights holders to agree can become more trouble than the book is worth.

Sounds like our current system with different entities having different rights with formats and distribution over a single work. How would you go about changing this?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I have to remember not to cast pearls before swine.

You mean, before monkeys

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Then why should that principle only be available at some future point in time? If a work has that much value, shouldn't it go into public domain immediately?

Per the Constitution of the United States, the point of a copyright is to encourage people to produce works and publish them (i.e., the clause about promoting the useful arts in the Constitution). We provide the originator of a work a limited period of copyright to give them a reason to produce the work and publish it. Considering how many works are published annually in the United States, it seems that copyright is successful in encouraging people to write and publish. Hence why works don't immediately enter the public domain.

Be that as it may, he lived under a different set of laws.

Right, but my point is that perpetual copyright will have a harmful effect on the development of culture.

Profit for the copyright holders. That's the whole point.

Then start paying me $20 a month for the rest of my life. Why? For my profit.

I have no objection to making sure the author of a work profits from the work they have produced. However, an accident of birth should not provide someone with an immediate right to collect profits. Even someone who inherits a major corporation has to work to ensure it remains profitable; not so with the inheritor of the right copyright.

Then the book dies and life marches on.

And copyright has failed to fulfill one of its primary purposes.

Lets remember that the vast majority of books are essentially out of print with in 10 years of publication. Now hopefully ebooks will change this situation somewhat. But it gets complicated if after a given publisher's contract expires they have to negotiate with 20 grandchildren all who might have differing demands about a book. Even worse after a couple of generations, it might literally become impossible to track down everyone who has inherited a stake in a book. Even with life +70 years it is often difficult to track down everyone who owns a share of the rights.

--
Bill